Diplopundit has an excellent article this week talking about (among other things) Africom. There’s a pretty interesting quote by Phillip L. Christenson, formerly of USAID:
“Many will argue that the first step should be to increase funding and add thousands of new employees to State and USAID to fend off what they perceive as encroachments onto State and USAID’s turf by DOD. Realistically, if this becomes a contest for whom can spend the most money, generate the most paperwork, and send the biggest team to interagency meetings, then State and USAID will lose every time. Just to give you an idea of the balance of forces, current plans call for AFRICOM to have a staff of 1,300 at its headquarters. The Bureau of African Affairs at the State Department has a staff of 100.”
Shocking, right? Africom is an interesting beast. As Christenson points out, many in the State Department see it as an encroachment. On the other hand, many take a pragmatic view, seeing it as DOD using its vast, vast resources to work to achieve the goal we’re all trying to achieve. I’m going to admit, that I’m unsure. (I know, bloggers are supposed to be ultra-opinionated; hopefully I’ll get there.)
Last month’s Foreign Service Journal (sorry no link, I can’t find Jan & Feb 2009’s online versions, if anyone else can, please comment it!) had a great article by Ambassador David Passage, here are a few questions he asks:
Does Washington really want to project a military face toward a continent that already suffers from a surfeit of them? Do we American believe that economic development and internal security structures (e.g., civilian and civilian-led police forces) should be built along military lines by armed forces? And is that what we want Africans to think we believe?
Ambassador Thomas A. Schweich called it, ” the quiet, de facto military takeover of much of the U.S. government.” That seems to be taking it a bit too far. I have little patience for bureaucratic turf wars (I always say I’m a diplomat, never a bureaucrat), that being said, Passage’s questions are thought-provoking. I should point out that he also mentions that the School of the Americas has created phenomenal Latin militaries that have subsequently committed human rights atrocities (think 80s Central America). I don’t believe we’re to blame for the atrocities, but surely we helped with the organizational efficiency, so that’s something to think about.
On the other hand, pontificating is great, and we always love to talk about the way things ought to be, but the simple truth is that military resources have been abundant for fifty years. There has been some talk of turning State into a supra-organization that would mostly facilitate other organizations in the overseas portion of their missions, that’s a post for another day, but the point is Africom is here, they’re not going to veer, get used to it.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t doubt that the military has abundant resources that it can put toward development projects, the question is why the military would be engaging in development at all and whether or not they’d be any good at it. The answer to both questions is no. This isn’t a turf war, it’s about pushing back against the militarization of US foreign policy.
Nature abhors a vacuum. So far Africa has been unlucky as that vacuum fills with the worst sort of pirate and rebel leader out to commit genocide. The US has an interest in seeing Africa move towards strong, stable, and pro-American governments. US military has a proven track record of doing what it does very well. Americans take for granted our system of law. A strong military, obeying a stonger civilian government for the people, benefits every State and USAID goal I know of and should be welcomed.
The US military has 6+ years of development experience in Iraq. Let the record speak for itself. Is the US military a learning organization that improves and learns from mistakes or not?